.
He makes an excellent case for Origen as the "fountainhead" of the problem. We all know that men can be very evil, and we might guess that Satan would have his best wolves as sheep in position to attack the Word of God. Thus, the conspiracy theory is not far-fetched. In fact, it is the best way to explain most of the variant readings. But, it is not simple. If you've ever heard a bad rumor about you, you know how difficult it can be to trace it back to its source. Moreover, we're not just talking about one man altering one set of manuscripts from whence the editing can be traced. We're talking about him travelling far and wide with a group of obedient stenographers to create a symphony of false manuscripts.
Thank you, Clint, for the article by Daniel B. Wallace ( http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=676 ). I found it to be a balanced presentation with pro-Isaiah leanings, albeit his conclusion on Mark 1:2 was an honest "I don't know." I also appreciate that you seem to take a posture of not charging either the KJV or the MVs with an error in the verse. Obviously, either God intended the name of Isaiah or he did not, but it is commendable not to form an opinion of whether it was an addition or subtraction until more evidence is on the table. I believe a healthy portion of that evidence is in the aforementioned work ( http://floydjones.org/which.pdf ). Right-click and "Save target as..." for later review.
I think Jones' gist was that Origen made a feeble attempt in Mark 1:2 to confuse the issue of the diety of Jesus Christ, matching his M.O. as more clearly seen in other edited verses. But, whether Origen was the main culprit or not, it should be clear that Satan made an effort in those early years to rid the Bible of the notion of Christ's diety. It is far more logical, in my opinion, to say that these were mainly subtractions (as opposed to additions) relative to God's intended words. The Mark 1:2 case, however, appears to have been a clever addition. For a good parallel presentation which mainly focuses on the subtractions, download Jones' "Ripped out of the Bible" ( http://floydjones.org/ebooks2.html ).
Another note on Zechariah: I don't know if the spirit of Jeremiah was in him, but God may have been hinting that he may have supported oral, yet unwritten prophecies. Note, the Zechariah's use of the word "cried" in Zec 1:4 and Zec 7:7. The theory is not worth forming a new denomination over, however.
Here are a couple more case of the use of the word "spoken" in the NT which non-Christians love to try to poke holes in: Matthew 2:23 and 21:4. No comment.
Here's another riddle mentioned earlier: "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" (James 4:5). I didn't feel like solving this one, mainly because I had seen the solution previously. I did a Google search for "lusteth to envy" and up popped www.geocities.com/brandplucked/spiritlusts.html in the #1 spot. It seems our buddy, Will, has already written an entire article on the verse. Thanks, Will.
Here's my take on Hebrews 6:4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened (i.e. born-again)... If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." I'm not a Greek expert (can't you tell?) but as I understand the aorist tense, it basically says "If they shall fall away (and they certainly will)..." We "fall away" every single time we sin by thought or deed. If 100% perfection is not the standard, then what is? 95%? 99%? What constitutes turning your back on God? In God's absolute view, we do it several times daily, perhaps hundreds. But the solution to our continual falling away is not that we need to be born again again. Note the use of the phrase "to renew them again." (For the solution, see the hope of Heb 6:19.) In fact, he is saying it is impossible to be born again again because Christ was crucified only once. It is finished! And, this is the one and only sacrifice (Heb 10:26)!
Verse 6:4 is the first mention of the word "once" in Hebrews, and we all know how important the word "once" is throughout the remainder of Hebrews, and in this immediate context through chapter 10. It is the central theme of chapters 6-10. He uses the word "they" because it was "they" who had this strange doctrine of needing to be born again again ("laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works"), re-baptized, re-annointed by the laying on of hands, etc. as indicated in verses 1-3.
Since there seems to be a bit of friction on the board, allow me to leave everyone with a few edifying words to rejoice in over the weekend. Hey, we're all on the same team here, right?
The word "once" in Hebrews:
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. (Heb 7:27)
But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: (Heb 9:7)
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb 9:12)
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Heb 9:26)
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Heb 9:27)
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Heb 9:28)
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. (Heb 10:2)
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:10)
.
Yes, I really think that if everyone on this board would download and read Floyd Jones' work (and I mean starting at page 1), they would get to see a balanced presentation of the subject. You can write to him also for free tapes. His address is in the download.
He makes an excellent case for Origen as the "fountainhead" of the problem. We all know that men can be very evil, and we might guess that Satan would have his best wolves as sheep in position to attack the Word of God. Thus, the conspiracy theory is not far-fetched. In fact, it is the best way to explain most of the variant readings. But, it is not simple. If you've ever heard a bad rumor about you, you know how difficult it can be to trace it back to its source. Moreover, we're not just talking about one man altering one set of manuscripts from whence the editing can be traced. We're talking about him travelling far and wide with a group of obedient stenographers to create a symphony of false manuscripts.
Thank you, Clint, for the article by Daniel B. Wallace ( http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=676 ). I found it to be a balanced presentation with pro-Isaiah leanings, albeit his conclusion on Mark 1:2 was an honest "I don't know." I also appreciate that you seem to take a posture of not charging either the KJV or the MVs with an error in the verse. Obviously, either God intended the name of Isaiah or he did not, but it is commendable not to form an opinion of whether it was an addition or subtraction until more evidence is on the table. I believe a healthy portion of that evidence is in the aforementioned work ( http://floydjones.org/which.pdf ). Right-click and "Save target as..." for later review.
I think Jones' gist was that Origen made a feeble attempt in Mark 1:2 to confuse the issue of the diety of Jesus Christ, matching his M.O. as more clearly seen in other edited verses. But, whether Origen was the main culprit or not, it should be clear that Satan made an effort in those early years to rid the Bible of the notion of Christ's diety. It is far more logical, in my opinion, to say that these were mainly subtractions (as opposed to additions) relative to God's intended words. The Mark 1:2 case, however, appears to have been a clever addition. For a good parallel presentation which mainly focuses on the subtractions, download Jones' "Ripped out of the Bible" ( http://floydjones.org/ebooks2.html ).
Another note on Zechariah: I don't know if the spirit of Jeremiah was in him, but God may have been hinting that he may have supported oral, yet unwritten prophecies. Note, the Zechariah's use of the word "cried" in Zec 1:4 and Zec 7:7. The theory is not worth forming a new denomination over, however.
Here are a couple more case of the use of the word "spoken" in the NT which non-Christians love to try to poke holes in: Matthew 2:23 and 21:4. No comment.
Here's another riddle mentioned earlier: "Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?" (James 4:5). I didn't feel like solving this one, mainly because I had seen the solution previously. I did a Google search for "lusteth to envy" and up popped www.geocities.com/brandplucked/spiritlusts.html in the #1 spot. It seems our buddy, Will, has already written an entire article on the verse. Thanks, Will.
Here's my take on Hebrews 6:4-6 "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened (i.e. born-again)... If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." I'm not a Greek expert (can't you tell?) but as I understand the aorist tense, it basically says "If they shall fall away (and they certainly will)..." We "fall away" every single time we sin by thought or deed. If 100% perfection is not the standard, then what is? 95%? 99%? What constitutes turning your back on God? In God's absolute view, we do it several times daily, perhaps hundreds. But the solution to our continual falling away is not that we need to be born again again. Note the use of the phrase "to renew them again." (For the solution, see the hope of Heb 6:19.) In fact, he is saying it is impossible to be born again again because Christ was crucified only once. It is finished! And, this is the one and only sacrifice (Heb 10:26)!
Verse 6:4 is the first mention of the word "once" in Hebrews, and we all know how important the word "once" is throughout the remainder of Hebrews, and in this immediate context through chapter 10. It is the central theme of chapters 6-10. He uses the word "they" because it was "they" who had this strange doctrine of needing to be born again again ("laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works"), re-baptized, re-annointed by the laying on of hands, etc. as indicated in verses 1-3.
Since there seems to be a bit of friction on the board, allow me to leave everyone with a few edifying words to rejoice in over the weekend. Hey, we're all on the same team here, right?
The word "once" in Hebrews:
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. (Heb 7:27)
But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: (Heb 9:7)
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (Heb 9:12)
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Heb 9:26)
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Heb 9:27)
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Heb 9:28)
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. (Heb 10:2)
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:10)
.